On Feb 1, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak 2009-02-02 05.05:
On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Lachlan Hunt 2009-02-01 03.30:
-public-html
+www-archive
Sam Ruby wrote:
The third word is "strawman". It involves raising and
addressing an issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to
the topic being discussed.
That is not the definition of a strawman. A strawman is an
argument where one person misrepresents another's position so as
to be easily refuted.
Avoiding the point(s), for the benefit of one's own point(s), but
still making it seem as if one were on topic. That is a straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak 2009-01-31 22.55:
I don't think your description is in conflict with what I
stated. The one part I disagree with is that any raised issue
that at least three people agree is an issue must be flagged in
Working Drafts. I do think it is often a good idea to mark
especially controversial issues, or especially pervasive and
clearly unresolved issues, but I think doing this as a matter
of course may create a lot of work. I would say instead that we
should exercise reasonable judgment about when a flag in the
draft is warranted.
Stating his disagreement. (Conditionally permitted by Sam.)
P.S. I know you asked people not to state their agreement on
the list. But since your email was a reply to me, but since
your email was a reply to me and since I think it is helpful to
the group to see people coming to agreement, I chose to make an
exception.
Claiming to have stated his agreement.
Sam:
Keep a watch out for these three, and call them out when you
see them.
I see a "strawman".
Sorry, that's not a strawman either. Maciej was just pointing
that the he largely agreed with what Sam wrote, except for one
small part.
You (and Majiej) make it sound as if there is any difference
between saying
"I disagree in point x."
and
"I agree, except in point x."
Regardless, a strawman is misstating someone else's position. If I
misstated my own position, then that may be inconsistent, mistaken,
or positively deceptive on my part, but it is not a strawman
argument.
When I said "strawman", then I used the definitino we had been given
- and which I happen to think was a good one as well.
Even by Sam's hasty definition, "It involves raising and addressing an
issue that bears only a superficial resemblance to the topic being
discussed," I do not see how my statement qualifies. It was most
definitely about the topic being discussed, in a more than superficial
way. Nontheless, using an incorrect definition of the term "strawman"
as a basis for accusations is even less constructive.
While it seems you had not just one, but two disagreements with Sam.
(Second being the strawman definition.)
I assume that was some hasty writing on Sam's part, and not a
disagreement in substance. My experience is that he knows what a
strawman argument is. I do wish he had explained it more clearly.
However, this has nothing to do with the decision policy, which is
what I largely agreed with.
This is an example of why it is a terrible idea to encourage people
to accuse each other of fallacious arguments. We are now debating
the definition of "strawman" and what is and isn't a strawman
argument, instead of any point of substance.
Third being that you don't like the idea that we should look out for
strawmen arguments either.
Look out for? Sure. Politely point out when you believe your position
has been misstated? Sure. Randomly accuse others without
justification? That certainly seems like a bad idea, and when I first
read Sam's message I did not think it would have this kind of effect.
It is a logical fallacy to say that we land in a debate about what
strawmen is - when the proof for that is yourself.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. You can clarify if you
want, but I am also not sure we need to discuss this further.
Regards,
Maciej
